Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are...That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. - John 17:11b, 21

Friday, April 28, 2017

Whilst
engaged in a bit of online browsing this morning, I came across a March 21, 2017 FOX News article that piqued my interest. The following is the opening of
the post:

Christianity
is making a comeback in Europe – and it’s mostly thanks to Muslims, say experts
in Islam and faith leaders.

A
soaring number of Muslims, many of them refugees from Syria, Iraq and
Afghanistan, are converting to Christianity, breathing new life into Europe’s
once floundering Christian churches. The Muslims are flocking to various
Christian denominations, experts said, including becoming Protestants, evangelical
or Catholic.

As
many parts of Europe are becoming more secular and houses of worship are seeing
congregants leave in droves, it is Muslim converts who are reviving struggling
Christian churches.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Four
of my earliest posts here at AF (11/07 thru 01/08) were part of a series
titled: Mormonism
and Margaret Barker. This post will be the fifth installment of this
series.

Yesterday,
I received in the mail volume 56.1 (2017) of the BYU Studies Quarterly journal
(see this
link for full content). This issue included, "a lightly edited
transcript of a lecture delivered by Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker at
Brigham Young University on November 9, 2016" (p. 75).

Barker's
contribution was titled, "The Lord Is One", which is an interesting
one, given the primary content of the lecture—deification/theosis in the Bible.
This topic of deification/theosis in the Bible is a common theme in a number of
Barker's articles, books, and lectures. In part 3 (link) of my aforementioned
series, I contrast some of Barker's reflections on deification/theosis with
those within the Mormon paradigm. I concluded that post with:

A careful analysis of Barker’s teachings on first Temple
deification offers little (if any) resemblance to deification/exaltation in LDS
theology. Not only does deification take place prior to ones death and entrance
into heaven,deification
has nothing to do with the resurrection of the physical body; which is
a non-negotiable element of Latter-day Saint deification/exaltation.

The edited transcript of Barker's 11/09/16 lecture presents
no new material that would give me cause to change any of my previous
assessments contained in the first four installments of this series. Though
Barker's contributions are always an interesting read (IMO), her unwavering
commitment to a number of liberal presuppositions and theories advanced by
critics and skeptics of the Bible makes it extremely difficult for me to embrace,
and/or endorse, the general thrust of a number of the conclusions she has
reached—e.g. Yahweh is not the one true God of Israel, the
"Deuteronomists" changed and corrupted the original teachings of the
"First Temple Theology", the king of Israel was "the Lord in
human form", et al.(See Barker's
website for a listing of all of her contributions; a good number of
her published papers are available there for free.)

One
glaring flaw contained in the edited transcript is her belief that the, "Deuteronomists
also denied the ancient belief that the Lord was seen in human form, what the
Christians would later call incarnation" (p. 82). She appeals to Deut.
4:12 to support this belief, stating:

The Deuteronomists, however, said that no divine form was seen,
even when Moses received the Ten Commandments: “The Lord spoke to you out of
the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was
only a voice” (Deut. 4:12). (Page 82)

Barker is unable (unwilling?) to harmonize Deut. 4:12 with those
numerous verses contained in the Bible which state that God was
"seen". Why is it that she cannot accomplish what so many other
scholars/theologians have done? I cannot help but think that her liberal
presuppositions and theories are at play here.

Complicating Barker's assessment is her enlisting of a number of
verses from the Gospel of John which she believes contradicts Deut. 4:12, and
the so-called teaching of the Deuteronomists. And yet, it is from the writings
of John that one finds the strongest statements that God has not been seen, nor
can be seen! (See my previous
thread for germane references.)

Anyway,
I wanted to bring to the attention of my readers this latest contribution by
Barker. I am confident that my future posts concerning the visio Deior
vision of God will expose certain weaknesses in Barker's assessments,
and also demonstrate that the verses she finds so contradictory are in fact
harmonious.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

The
visio Dei or vision of God—also known as the 'Beatific Vision'—is
generally understood as the eschatological vision of God that the glorified
saints in heaven will be blessed with throughout eternity. The highly regarded,
Eastern Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky wrote:

No
Christian theologian has ever denied ex-professo that the elect will
have a vision of God in the state of final beatitude. This truth is formally
attested by the Scriptures: "We shall see him as he is," ὀψόμεθααὐτὸνκαθώςἐστιν (1 John 3:2). However,
it has given rise to different theological developments, all the more so in
that the same Scriptures, the same Epistle of St. John (4:12) asserts that,
"no one has ever seen God," θεὸνοὐδεὶςπώποτετεθέαται, and St. Paul states precisely that He cannot be seen (1
Tim. 6:16). (The Vision of God, trans. Asheleigh Moorhouse, 1983, p.
11.)

I
hope to explore the issue of "different theological developments" in
future posts, so this one will focus on the Scriptural references upon which
the concept of the visio Dei is built.

I
will start with the words of Jesus Christ who explicitly said: "Blessed are the pure in
heart: for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8 - ASV).

This
promised vision of God to the "pure in heart" seems to have reference
to the age after the eschatological return of Jesus, for His apostle, John,
wrote:

Beloved, now are we the
sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that,
when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1
John 3:2 - KJV)

This eschatological
vision of God is mentioned in the book of Revelation, wherein it is written
that during the age of the "new heaven and earth", the
"servants" of God will, "see His face" (Rev. 22:4 - NAS).

The apostle Paul makes
reference to the eschatological vision of God in his first epistle to the
Corinthians:

For now we see through a
glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know
even as also I am known. (1 Cor. 13:12 - KJV)

There are also a couple
of OT verses which seem to speak of the eschatological vision of God:

And after my skin is
destroyed, this I know, That in my flesh I shall see God... (Job 19:26 -
NKJ)

As for me, I shall
behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding
thy form. (Psa. 17:15 - ASV)

To discern what this
future, eschatological vision of God entails, one must balance the
aforementioned verses with two classes of verses which seem to lie in stark
opposition to each other: verses which relate that God has been seen in our
current age, contrasted with those verses which state that God has not been
seen, and cannot be seen. Verses of the first class include the following:

And Jehovah appeared
unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he
an altar unto Jehovah, who appeared unto him. (Gen. 12:7 - ASV)

And when Abram was
ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am
God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (Gen. 17:1 - ASV)

And Jehovah appeared
unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the
day; (Gen. 18:1 - ASV)

And the men turned from
thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before Jehovah. (Gen.
18:22 - ASV)

And Jehovah appeared
unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt. Dwell in the land which I shall
tell thee of. (Gen. 26:2 - ASV)

And Jehovah appeared
unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father. Fear
not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my
servant Abraham's sake. (Gen. 26:24 - ASV)

And Jacob called the
name of the place Peniel: for, said he, I have seen God face to face,
and my life is preserved. (Gen. 32:30 - ASV)

And God said unto Jacob,
Arise, go up to Beth-el, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, who
appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. (Gen.
35:1 - ASV)

And God appeared unto
Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. (Gen. 35:9 - ASV)

And Jacob said unto
Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed
me... (Gen. 48:3 - ASV)

Go, and gather the
elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah, the God of your fathers,
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, hath appeared unto me, saying, I
have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
(Ex. 3:16 - ASV)

That they may believe
that Jehovah, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. (Ex. 4:5 - ASV)

And God spake unto
Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto
Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known
to them. (Ex. 6:2, 3 - ASV)

And they saw the God of
Israel;
and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as
it were the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of
Israel he laid not his hand: and they beheld God, and did eat and drink.
(Ex. 24:10, 11 - ASV)

My servant Moses is not
so; he is faithful in all my house: with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even
manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Jehovah shall he behold:
(Num. 12:7, 8a - ASV)

They have heard that thou
Jehovah art in the midst of this people; for thou Jehovah art seen face to
face, and thy cloud standeth over them, and thou goest before them, in a
pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night. (Num. 14:14b - ASV)

For Jehovah is righteous;
He loveth righteousness: The upright shall behold his face. (Psa. 11:7)

I had heard of thee by
the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye seeth thee: (Job 42:5)

Then said I, Woe is me!
for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst
of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of
hosts. (Isa. 6:5 - ASV)

Below, are the second class of verses:

And he said, Thou canst
not see my face; for man shall not see me and live. (Ex. 33:20)

No man has seen God at
any time;
the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.(John 1:18 - NAS)

And the Father who sent
Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time,
nor seen His form. (John 5:37 - NAS)

Not that any man has
seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. (John
6:46 - NAS)

He who is the blessed
and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses
immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can
see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (1 Tim. 1:15b, 16 -
NAS)

No one has beheld God at
any time;
if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. (1
John 4:12)

And
so, we have before us three classes of verses concerning the vision of God:
first, those passages which affirm that God/Jehovah has been seen; second,
those which relate that God will be seen; and third, those which state that God
cannot be seen.

I
suppose some folk will argue that we have before us a contradiction; however,
as one who affirms the inerrancy of the Bible, I maintain all the above
passages can be harmonized. In fact, they have been competently harmonized by a
good number of theologians, though this harmonization has taken on varying
forms. In future posts, I hope to explore these differing options (the Lord
willing); options which Lossky has described as, "different theological
developments".

Contributors

Total Pageviews

Getting History Right

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.) [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf]

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. – John Henry Newman